January 27, 2026, City Council Agenda Comments The following comments on items on the Newport Beach City Council agenda are submitted by: Jim Mosher ( [email protected] ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949-548-6229) Item 2. Minutes for the January 13, 2026, City Council Meeting The passages shown in italics below are from the draft minutes with suggested corrections shown in strikeout underline format. The page numbers refer to Volume 66. Page 473 , Item II. first paragraph after bullet: “ Councilmember Weigand recused himself from participating
in
this
item
due
to
a
conflict
of
interest
.”
[comment: The Political Reform Act requires disclosure not just of the existence of a conflict, but
of
the
nature
of
the
conflict.
While
that
disclosure
presumably
happened
at
the
meeting,
one
might
think
the
minutes
would
give
some
hint
of
what
the
reason
for
the
recusal
was,
as
is done on page 479 of the present draft minutes. In this case, the video shows Councilmember Weigand said he was recusing himself because of “significant investments in the
telecom
industry.”]
still
required
to
provide
notices
to
residents
within
a
300-foot
radius
of
the
site
and
the
City
would
consider
objections
in
writing
.”
[comment: The draft minutes may be a little misleading in that I do not believe this was part of
the
staff
proposal
nor
a
statement
regarding
obligations
of
telecommunications
carriers
in
general.
Rather,
I
believe
it
was
a
reference
to
provision
4.3 in
the
“master
license
agreement” (contract C-8539-1) that was approved by the Council as Item 12 at its February 13, 2018. That contract pre-authorized Verizon Wireless, in consultation with the Police Department,
to
install
transmitters
on
new
or
replacement
streetlight
poles
at
up
to
32 indeterminate
locations
with
poor
9-1-1
coverage.
That
one
existing
contract,
and
to
the
best
of
knowledge,
only
that
one
contract,
includes
the
noticing
provision
described
at
the
meeting,
with
the
Community
Development
Director
adjudicating
any
objections
received.
Aside
from
that
one
contract,
there
is
no
general
noticing
requirement
outside
the
coastal
zone,
and
none
was
proposed,
although
Ms.
Whitlinger
said
one
“could”
be
included
if
Council
so
directed.]
Project
scheduled
for
completion
in
early
spring
”
[note: the reference was to the Sanitation District’s construction around the abutments to the Upper
Newport
Bay
Bridge
(aka
Marian
Bergeson
Memorial
Bridge)
associated
with
their
replacement
of
the
Bay
Bridge
Pump
Station.]
concern
about
regarding changes to agenda items and questioned whether the resolution was to
be
modified
relating
to
Agenda
Item
4 (Resolution
No.
2026-1:
Updating
the
List
of
Designated
Employees
for
2026
Under
the
City’s
Conflict
of
Interest
Code)
.”
January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 2 of 6
to
approve
the
Consent
Calendar,
including
amendments
to
Agenda
Item
No.
1,
the
Minutes
;
and
removal
of
Agenda
Item
9 for
further
discussion
at
the
request
of
Councilmember
Stapleton
.”
[According to the video, Councilmember Stapleton objected to the draft minutes erroneously indicating that he had voted in favor of the “A-1 item” at the December 9, 2025, meeting, and said
he
had
a
draft
of
"adjustments"
to
the
minutes
correcting
that
misstatement,
and
wanted
to
be
sure
they
would
be
included
in
the
motion.
I
am
doubtful
the
document
suggesting
the
changes
was
available
for
public
inspection
at
the
time
of
the
meeting,
but
something
called
“02 - Draft Minutes for December 9, 2025 - Amended” can be found with the January 13 materials archived in Laserfiche, showing the vote corrected to “4-3.” Despite this being incorporated in the January 13 motion, page 2 of what claims to be the official minutes of the December 9 meeting, signed by the Mayor and City Clerk, continues to show the December
9 “A-1”
request
having
been
approved
by
a
“7-0”
straw
vote
.]
[note: City Charter Section 412 allows any Council member to demand the reading in full of any ordinance at the time of its adoption, but that did not happen with this ordinance at this meeting.]
area
and
recommended
postponing
the
contract
until
the
pending
federal California court case
is
resolved
.”
[note: The case I was referring to is New Commune DTLA LLC v. City of Redondo Beach , 115 Cal. App. 5th 111 (2025), which largely invalidates the use of “overlays” to meet state housing requirements. I think I made it clear an appeal is pending before the California Supreme Court, not the U.S. Supreme Court. I have since learned our City
Attorney
may
believe
that
regardless
of
the
outcome,
the
City
may
be
protected
by
the
statute
of
limitations.
As
a
non-lawyer
I
do
not
know
if
that
is
correct.]
the
specific
plan
and
requested
that
outreach
include
all
property
owners
in
the
area
.”
Item 3. Ordinance No. 2026-01 Modifying Provisions Related to Temporary
Street
Closures
and
City
Franchised
Solid
Waste
Management
The introduction of this ordinance is one of four recommendations from the City Council’s Ad Hoc
Refuse
Committee
on
the
present
agenda,
the
other
three
being
Items
6,
10 and
11. Although the “Discussion” in the staff report says the Committee is “comprised of Councilmember
Grant,
Councilmember
Barto
and
staff
,”
I
believe
that
for
it
to
meet
and
make
January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 3 of 6 decisions out of the public eye, the Brown Act requires it to be composed solely of Councilmembers
Grant
and
Barto,
and
the
recommendations
should
be
regarded
as
theirs
alone
(if
it
included
members
who
were
not
members
of
the
City
Council,
all
its
meetings
would
have
to
be
publicly
noticed).
Resolution 2025-12, which formally created the committee on March 25, 2025, is an improvement over the former Council “Working Group” on solid waste which oversaw the City’s transition
to
its
present
“three-stream”
residential
collection
system,
and
other
matters,
without
the
public
being
quite
sure
if
it
existed,
and
if
it
was,
who
was
on
it
and
how
they
got
appointed.
Still, the present committee, which is scheduled to run through the end of 2026 unless it finishes making
its
recommendations
earlier,
is
a
bit
shadowy,
with
the
public
not
knowing
when
it
will
meet,
what
it
will
be
discussing,
and,
apparently,
not
seeking
general
public
comment
on
the
matters
within
its
very
broad
mandate
to
deliberate.
The staff report says NBMC “ Chapter 12.62 was adopted in 1968 with the most recent amendments
in
1985
.”
As
best
I
can
tell,
both
Chapter
12.62 and
Chapter
12.63 were,
in
fact,
both modified in 2023. A redline of the changes can be found starting on page 820 of the Item 24 staff report from the November 14, 2023, Council agenda. Since they were buried in a 1,340-page
report
revising
the
entire
Municipal
Code,
and
more,
in
a
single
vote,
it
is
unclear
those
changes,
which
appear
largely
technical,
were
carefully
reviewed
by
most
of
the
Council
or
the
public.
As to the ordinance presently being proposed for introduction:
1. I do not think it is wise to introduce ordinances on the consent calendar, where they receive
extremely
limited
review.
2. Attachment A, on page 27 of this meeting’s 401-page electronic agenda packet indicates changes are being proposed to NBMC Sections 12.62.030 and 12.62.040. Yet, Attachment
B
on
page
31 shows
a
redline
only
to
what
it
says
is
Section
12.62.010.
3. This is confusing enough to attempt to untangle in electronic documents. It is even less likely
to
be
reviewed
when
the
public
is
required
to
pay
to
obtain
paper
copies
of
the
materials
being
considered
by
their
City
Council.
The
absence
of
sequential
page
numbers
on
the
agenda
materials,
unless
downloaded
as
a
full
agenda
packet,
further
impedes
communicating
observations
about
them.
4. As best I can tell, the Committee would like to recommend the changes to Sections
12.62.030
and
12.62.040
found
in
the
ordinance
on
page
27 plus
the
changes
to
Section
12.62.010
shown
in
redline
on
page
31. However,
the
ordinance,
as
presented,
accomplishes
only
the
former,
and
what
changes
it
is
proposing
to
Sections
12.62.030
and
12.62.040
is
not
obvious
since
no
redline
of
them
is
provided.
5. On page 28 of the electronic agenda packet, the ordinance proposes amending three definitions
in,
and
adding
five
new
definitions
to,
NBMC
Section
12.63.020.
It
is
not
clear
the
proposal,
as
presented,
is
consistent
with
City
Charter
Section
418
(“Ordinances.
Amendment”)
which
allows
the
Council
to
amend
only
“section(s)
or
subsection(s)”
of
prior
ordinances.
This
is
a
relaxation
of
the
original
Charter,
which
only
allowed
“sections”
to
be
re-enacted
in
full.
However,
the
definitions
do
not
appear
to
be
January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 4 of 6 numbered “subsections” within Section 12.63.020. In particular, without subsection numbering,
the
ordinance
as
proposed
does
not
make
clear
where
within
the
already
long
list
of
definitions
the
new
definitions
would
be
added.
I
would
think
the
ordinance
needs
to
show
the
entire
Section
12.63.020
as
the
Council
wants
it
to
appear
(much
as
it
is
shown
in
redline
in
Attachment
C
on
agenda
packet
pages
32 through
35. 6. It might be noted that the proposed ordinance is inconsistent in this respect in that on agenda
packet
pages
29 and
30 it
proposes
to
amend
the
whole
of
NBMC
Sections
12.63.080
and
12.63.150,
yet
from
the
redline
on
pages
35 and
36,
the
intent
is
to
amend
only
Subsections
12.63.080.B,
12.63.150.C
and
12.63.150.D
–
although
one
would
have
to
read
very
carefully
the
wording
of
the
other
subsections
as
printed
in
the
ordinance
to
make
sure
no
changes
have
inadvertently
been
made
to
them.
7. The “Whereas” clauses at the beginning of the ordinance suggest a major reason for the changes
is
to
improve
landfill
diversion.
How
is
the
City
doing
on
that?
The
Refuse
Committee
presumably
knows,
but
the
citizens
do
not.
Item 5. Resolution No. 2026-04: Authorizing the Filing of an Application
for
Grant
Funding
from
the
California
Coastal
Commission
Whale
Tail
Grants
Program
to
Support
the
Fostering
Interest
in
Nature
Program
It would have been helpful to have provided the MOU with the Coastal Commission that this item relates to, and which has apparently been archived as contract C-8230-1 (“MOU to Provide Lower-Cost Overnight Accommodation Opportunities”). Since the program got off to a delayed start, what is the currently-projected end time for the 10-year
obligation?
Has the Lido House fully provided its financial promises? Or does it still have payments to make?
What is the plan for the program after the MOU and Lido House funding end? Item 8. Approval of Amendment No. Seven Contract Time Extension with
Robert
Coffee
Architects
and
Associates
The staff report is confusing in that under “Fiscal Impact” on the second page it says “ There is no
fiscal
impact
related
to
this
item
since
it
only
relates
to
Council
approving
the
contract
time
extension
.”
Yet, Recommendation (b) on the first page asks the Council to approve “ adding $92,440 to the not-to-exceed
amount
.”
Which is correct? If the intent is only to extend the expiration date, then it appears the wrong contract
has
been
submitted
for
Council
consideration,
since
it
clearly
says
the
purpose
of
the
amendment
is
to
both
extend
the
term
and
increase
compensation?
January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 5 of 6 Also, why is the project so far behind schedule? And why shouldn’t the City expect the work under
this
contract
to
be
completed
at
the
originally
agreed
to
price?
Why doesn’t the staff report describe what the additional compensation (if it is indeed being requested)
is
for,
leaving
readers
to
puzzle
over
Exhibit
A
(“Scope
of
Services”)
on
page
115
of
the
agenda
packet?
And as to that Scope of Services, since Robert R. Coffee Architect + Associates is apparently headquartered at 1200 Quail Street in Newport Beach, what justifies a “travel” charge of $1,600 per trip to the construction site by the Central Library, a distance, according to Google, of at most 5.2 miles? Finally, will this extra cost, if it is being requested, be borne solely by the City? Or shared with the
Newport
Beach
Library
Foundation?
Item 6. Amendment to Commercial Refuse Removal Services Contract with
CR&R
Inc.
(Contract
No.
8569-1)
See comment on Item 11, below. Although not recommended for change in the present amendment, Section 24.2 of the current contract calls for notices to be sent to a Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. Shouldn’t that be amended to refer to the Director of the Municipal
Operations
Department?
Item 10. Amendment to Trash and Recycling Container Removal Services
Contract
with
CR&R
Inc.
(Contract
No.
8549-1)
See comment on Item 11, below. Although not recommended for change in the present amendment, Section 24.2 of the current contract calls for notices to be sent to a Deputy Director of the Public Works Department. Shouldn’t that be amended to refer to the Director of the Municipal
Operations
Department?
Item 11. Amendment No. Four to Beach Container Refuse Collection Service
Contract
with
Rainbow
Disposal
Co.,
Inc.
(Contract
No.
4709)
Isn’t refuse collection one of the functions to be taken over by the Municipal Operations Department under Section 14 of Ordinance No. 2025-37, adopted at the Council’s January 13, 2026, meeting? If so, on page 162 of the electronic agenda packet, shouldn’t the notices be going to the “Director
of
Municipal
Operations”
and
not
to
the
“Director
of
Public
Works”?
Item 12. Professional Services Agreement with Infosend, Inc. For Document
Printing,
Mailing
Services,
and
Online
Presentment
The staff report says the vendor selection piggybacks on a procurement conducted by the City of Glenn Heights, Texas.That seems like a fairly obscure precedent to rely on.
January 27, 2026, City Council agenda comments - Jim Mosher Page 6 of 6 Also, I notice the staff report comes from the “Adminstrative Services Director/Treasurer.” With or without the spelling of "Administrative," isn’t that a title whose existence awaits the effective date of Ordinance No. 2025-37, which, having just been adopted on January 13, has not come quite yet?